I can't be absolutely sure Pericles, but when I am given the choice between the miracles version and the no miracles version, I am inclined to opt for the latter as being the more likely.

>>This relies very heavily on the pesher theory, which - although attractive to those who want to believe that the Bible has layers of meaning - seems just a little too convenient for uncommitted observers like me. The generally accepted position - not that the majority is always right of course - is that there is no presently known proven direct link between Jesus and the Gospels.<<

One can hazard a good guess without relying on the pesher at all as to the reality of the central miracle, the 'resurrection'. Taken at its face value, the story is that Jesus was crucified, and while on the cross was given some poison (said to be vinegar) and soon lost consciousness. Claiming him to be dead, his disciples got permission to take him down before the Sabbath and placed him in a cave. One disciple, Nicodemus, brought him aloes (a purgative) and myrrh (a commonly used treatment for wounds). Some time later he was seen to be walking around, talking to his disciples (showing one of them, Thomas, the wounds in his hands and side) and later meeting Paul on the road to Damascus. When he was supposedly dead on the cross a soldier pierced his side with a spear, and he bled.

(continued)

(As I was saying ...)

Now the official version of this story is that he died on the cross and on the third day he was resurrected and miraculously appeared to his disciples and Paul and then "ascended into Heaven".

Is it not more probable that he was still alive but unconscious when he was taken down? After all, dead men don't bleed. Is it not more probable that the reason Nicodemus brought the aloes and myrrh is that he knew Jesus was still alive and needed a purgative for the poison and a dressing for his wounds? Is it not more probable that it was a living human being that talked to the disciples and showed Thomas his wounds, and not some miraculous phantom?

It follows, then, that if Jesus did survive the crucifixion, it is quite feasible to assume that he would have a large say in the writing of the scriptures for his new church. As to his speaking Greek, that language had been the lingua franca of the region for some time, even Cicero spoke it, according to Shakespeare.

Dear Sympneology,
Could you please tell me how you reconcile John 19;34
with your belief as I have been led to believe that water seperates from blood after death.A medical person should be able to tell us.

Dear Symempelogy,
If you want to do anything with your life you will have to learn to use your imagination for positive posibilitys because if you only use your imagination to reinforce your unbelief you will always be an underachiever and never receive your full potential for without faith vou can not please God. Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for and I am sure that you have dreams of acomplishment. For man it is impossible . BUT with God all things are possible. If you Know God is in your corner rooting for you "for with God nothing is impossible" you get up and have another go.
Jesus came to save our soul {your mind,will,and emotions} so you can be a winner or overcomer not a looser. If you always need others to motivate you, you will underacheave in life.
Don't judge what you don't understand for you and those most precious to you pay the price,

That would be quite an assumption, Sympneology.

>>It follows, then, that if Jesus did survive the crucifixion, it is quite feasible to assume that he would have a large say in the writing of the scriptures for his new church.<<

Unlike your alternative version of the crucifixion, there is no evidence - even circumstantial - of a link between Jesus and the stuff that was written about him. In fact, given the significant discrepancies between versions, is not more likely that there was no written history at all, merely word-of-mouth campfire stories?

If such a scribe existed, and did indeed do his scribing as you... err, describe, would you not expect a greater degree of similarity in the stories?

But once again I have to ask, why is it so important to discredit Bible stories?

Placing events more accurately in a historical perspective is one thing, and is the proper pursuit of archaeologists and historians. But faith, as far as I can tell, does not need historical accuracy.

Deliberately setting out to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation document is like drowning puppies. It may be possible to justify intellectually, but it doesn't make a difference to the expression on the children's faces as they watch you do it.

Pericles wrote: Deliberately setting out to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation document is like drowning puppies. It may be possible to justify intellectually, but it doesn't make a difference to the expression on the children's faces as they watch you do it.

Dear Pericles,

Drowning puppies cannot be justified intellectually since there are less painful ways to dispose of animals, and one doesn't have to do it in the face of children.

However, faith in religion has done intense harm. It has inspired oppression, conquest, torture and massacre.

It has also inspired sending out missionaries whose purpose is to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation documents in order to accept the faith of the missionaries' foundation documents. If sincere believers resent attempts to undermine their faith they should stop encouraging missionaries whose purpose is to undermine the faith of believers in other religions.

Losing religious faith can bring a sense of loss. It can also bring a feeling of joy and liberation.